I agree re Glow, there is a feeling of fragmentation around the implementation. I’m not sure what the reason is so research seems essential. I also share Bill Boyd’s concerns about intranets. They seem a bit WEB 0.5 when the world is moving to Web 2.0 and beyond:-)

You’re so right about evaluation. We’re trying as a profession to become reflective practitioners – we should be being led in this by LEARNING and Teaching Scotland.

I wonder who has been sniffy about your work? Shame on them.

Bill

‘Hello Angus..fancying meeting you again in our council area in GLOW..’ ‘Aye well there’s naybiddy else tae talk tae!’ We feel that we are constantly trying to catch up let alone get the damm thing into every classroom…we need to stop and think things through for once, especially those authorities who have only recently signed up, trained 30 mentors six months ago and then done nothing since!

There are reservations over K-12 – there weren’t good enough studies available to know whether conclusions are valid there – but what you’re seeing would be consistent with their findings being valid for school situations.

The meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction.

…

Analysts noted that these blended conditions often included additional learning time and instructional elements not received by students in control conditions. This finding suggests that the positive effects associated with blended learning should not be attributed to the media, per se.

Our national strategy is to develop a world-class education system, and we accept that our current model must change. In that context, we are prioritising effectiveness over optimum efficiency: it takes time and effort to make changes, especially when it’s not possible to know in advance what exactly we need to do. If we spend time and resources on change, we become less efficient at operating the existing system in the meantime.

Unfortunately, though, when local authority funding is tight, and it’s politically difficult to make significant savings, such as through school closures, the decision is often to choose to make “efficiency savings” instead. Short-term efficiency becomes more important than long-term effectiveness. This is a much easier sell, especially against a background of newspapers and politicians who like to pretend there’s endless waste in the public sector. The trouble, of course, is that these innocuous-sounding efficiency savings are counter-productive: they act to prevent change progressing by leaving room only for today’s necessary activities.

There’s no easy answer to that, but it’s important that the need for a certain amount of inefficiency is recognised at times of significant change. That tends not to happen: efficiency is always a Good Thing.

And out of curiousity, I looked up the quote: it appears to originate from a jspencer here:
http://www.siriusit.co.uk/myblog/managed-services-in-uk-schools.html

I think ACfE is in danger of falling foul to this fate unless we, as teachers, step in and make it work. This will need strong leadership from teachers in the classrooms who believe in the change agenda, and who will need to help convince their colleagues.

ACfE offers so much, as do technologies, but they are in danger of being hijacked as political footballs by unions, so-called professional bodies, and academics as well as the political parties.

Jaye

I’d love to know what specific examples you’re thinking of when you mention “expensive white elephants, under-funded initiatives and vast sums of money being poured into the pet favourites of the prevalent political colour”?